Re: [PATCH V1 2/3] MFD: da9052: Add new DA9053 BC chip variant

[Mark Brown]

On Wed, Feb 26, 2014 at 09:32:03AM +0000, Lee Jones wrote:

> > It can be worth doing anyway with a subsystem that's actively developed
> > since sometimees the dependencies are the other way - the APIs in Linus'
> > tree may have gone away.

> Then what happens if the tree that your patch finally gets sucked into
> is pulled before the one you've written your code against? I'd say
> basing your code on -next is generally a bad idea.

Submitters should defintely at the very least be checking against the
subsystem tree (since that's what they're really submitting against) -
it's always annoying when someone submits code that either doesn't
apply or fails to build with the current tree.

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature